David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[ToadBrother]

They can try, but determining optimal level of taxation is far more complicated then simply trying to determine the risk of an event occurring for an individual (and without expertise in modelling climate, how are they even determining this?).

What's the obsession with optimal level? You start with a best guess, then alter taxation levels as time goes on. You know, like you do with any kind of taxation.

An economist like William Nordhaus, Richard Tol or Kenneth Arrow.

And economists can have their input as well, and hopefully a lot longer list than you provide. Just give them say a timeline of, say two or three years at most to come up with the answer, and then expect that not to be the final answer.

[-1=e^ipi]

What choice would China have? They cannot force us to buy their goods at the prices they desire. Besides, lower price manufacturers like India are already taking a bite out of their ailing economy.

10 years ago, they would not have a choice. 10 years in the future, not so much, especially if nationalism is going to be on the rise in China (which I expect it to be).

[TimG]

Tariffs take effect at our borders, not theirs. And the PRC will kick and scream

No they won't. They will retaliate by placing tariffs on Canadian exports. This will either kill Canada businesses and jobs or force them to relocate. Your view of the world as economic slaves to whims of developed countries extremely elitist and wrong. Canada needs to trade with the world more than the world needs to trade with Canada.

[ToadBrother]

10 years ago, they would not have a choice. 10 years in the future, not so much, especially if nationalism is going to be on the rise in China (which I expect it to be).

China's economy is, and will remain for a long time to come heavily dependent on selling to Europe, North America and Japan. They are making some headway in selling to Africa and other developing parts of the world, but Walmart is still basically China's economic engine.

[TimG]

China's economy is, and will remain for a long time to come heavily dependent on selling to Europe, North America and Japan.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2014-02/21/content_17298225.htm

While the rest of the world cuts back on spending, Chinese consumers bought 47 percent of all luxury goods in the world in 2013, according to a report by Fortune Character Institute.

It said about $102 billion was spent on high-end goods by Chinese shoppers last year, making the county the biggest consumer of luxury items in the globe.

http://www.ibtimes.com/china-extends-lead-worlds-largest-car-market-sales-gm-ford-china-deliveries-double-digits-1621254

This is welcome news for General Motors Co. (NYSE:GM), the second-largest foreign automaker in China, which has been suffering a public relations crisis over a slew of recalls and the fatal ignition switch flaw in some older mid-sized sedans. Chevrolet sales are starting to feel a consumer backlash in the U.S., but GM said Monday that sales in China have increased 10.5 percent in the first half of 2014, to 1.73 million vehicles.

Sorry, but US and European companies are completely dependent on the China market and cannot afford to be locked out of it which is what would happen if the US and the EU tried to block Chinese products with spurious 'environmental taxes'. Edited October 1, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

http://www.ibtimes.com/china-extends-lead-worlds-largest-car-market-sales-gm-ford-china-deliveries-double-digits-1621254

Sorry, but US and European companies are completely dependent on the China market and cannot afford to be locked out of it which is what would happen if the US tried to block Chinese products with spurious 'environmental taxes'.

Good. The more interdependent, the more likely we won't need to create carbon tariffs. China will cooperate, as will India. The First World still constitutes the overwhelming majority of consumers of middle and high end manufactured goods.

[-1=e^ipi]

What's the obsession with optimal level?

Because the welfare of 7 billion people, soon to be 10 billion people, is worth proper analysis.

You start with a best guess, then alter taxation levels as time goes on.

And what is the methodology for obtaining a best guess for optimal taxation?...

That was a rhetorical question btw.

You know, like you do with any kind of taxation.

No, here is how taxation policy is determined in Canada and elsewhere: Politicians pull numbers from thin air and then use overly simplistic populist arguments to get elected. Then they ignore all empirical data and wait for the next election to try to get reelected.

All of our tax policies are baseless. That's why places like USA have a 0% VAT, where as places like Sweden have a 25% VAT. Do you think the difference in VAT between those 2 countries is due to intrinsic economic differences or due to ideological difference in the idiot politicians that run those countries? I say it's the latter.

Just give them say a timeline of, say two or three years at most to come up with the answer, and then expect that not to be the final answer.

They've been coming up with estimates for optimal taxation for over 2 decades. Yet most policy makers continually ignore their estimates in favour of overly simplistic nonsense arguments and methodology (such as the strong precautionary principle). That's why the 2C target is so popular. Because it is overly simplistic.

[ToadBrother]

Because the welfare of 7 billion people, soon to be 10 billion people, is worth proper analysis.

And what is the methodology for obtaining a best guess for optimal taxation?...

That was a rhetorical question btw.

No, here is how taxation policy is determined in Canada and elsewhere: Politicians pull numbers from thin air and then use overly simplistic populist arguments to get elected. Then they ignore all empirical data and wait for the next election to try to get reelected.

All of our tax policies are baseless. That's why places like USA have a 0% VAT, where as places like Sweden have a 25% VAT. Do you think the difference in VAT between those 2 countries is due to intrinsic economic differences or due to ideological difference in the idiot politicians that run those countries? I say it's the latter.

They've been coming up with estimates for optimal taxation for over 2 decades. Yet most policy makers continually ignore their estimates in favour of overly simplistic nonsense arguments and methodology (such as the strong precautionary principle). That's why the 2C target is so popular. Because it is overly simplistic.

It strikes me that your demand for "optimal taxation levels" is rather disingenuous, a backwards way of trying to argue that we shouldn't tax CO2 at all.

I see absolutely no need for "optimal taxation" for carbon any more than I see a need for optimal GST percentage or optimal income tax percentage. You pick a number that's reasonable enough to accomplish your goals. If it begins to look like it won't accomplish the goal, then raise it, if it looks like it might be too high, you lower it.

AS I said, though, you're just being disingenuous, as you pretty much admit.

[-1=e^ipi]

Good. The more interdependent, the more likely we won't need to create carbon tariffs. China will cooperate, as will India.

If that were the case, you wouldn't need a pigouvian tax since everyone would just cooperate with each other.

But that isn't realistic and the free-rider problem exists. The fact that people trade with each other doesn't eliminate the free rider problem.

[TimG]

Good. The more interdependent, the more likely we won't need to create carbon tariffs. China will cooperate, as will India.

No they won't. Their first priority is economic growth. Co-operation will only consist of demanding that developed countries give the aid. Any suggestion that they pay a carbon tariff will be met with wails of derisive laughter.

[-1=e^ipi]

It strikes me that your demand for "optimal taxation levels" is rather disingenuous, a backwards way of trying to argue that we shouldn't tax CO2 at all.

That isn't my position at all.

But people getting angry at losing an argument and then trying to infer that I have some hidden motive/position to dismiss my argument is something I'm quite used to.

I see absolutely no need for "optimal taxation" for carbon any more than I see a need for optimal GST percentage or optimal income tax percentage.

Because you don't care about the well being of millions or billions of people?

You pick a number that's reasonable enough to accomplish your goals.

No, you should pick the BEST number because you should want to maximize the well being of society.

[ReeferMadness]

The best I can do is look at energy density.

The enthalpy of formation if aluminum oxide is 1669.8 kJ/mol. Atmoic mass of aluminum is 27 g/mol. So the 25 kg of aluminum contains 1.55 * 10^9 J.

By comparison, gasoline has an energy density of 32.4 MJ/L. If we assume gasoline has a cost of $1/L then $50 of gasoline contains 1.62 * 10^9 J.

Wow. Your calculations are amazing. Or, at least they would be if they took into account how things work in the real world.

Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37 %. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18 %-20 %.[14] Rocket engine efficiencies are much better, up to 70 %, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.[15] Electric motors are better still, at around 85 -90 % efficiency or more,

So, an electric motor gets roughly 4-4.5 times the usable power out of the same potential compared with an internal combustion engine. And electric cars have much lower maintenance costs because they have many fewer parts systems to worry about (no exhaust system, no ignition system, no fuel pump, electric motor is much simpler and lighter than ICE, etc).

2. Assuming market prices remain constant is partial equilibrium analysis not full equilibrium analysis. If the entire world goes to aluminum batteries, then the demand for aluminum will skyrocket, which means that prices will increase.

Good thing aluminum is the most abundant material in the earth's crust. And don't forget, once the plates are made, they can be recycled forever.

1. Let's be super generous and say that you can indefinitely store 1.55 * 10^9 J of energy for $50. A kWh is 3.6 * 10^6 J. So the storage cost suggests you should add 11.6 cents per kWh to solar and wind.

Yes. Assuming that 100% of the energy is stored instead of used as it is produced. IOW, assuming the electrical engineers managing the grid are all idiots.

And assuming that none of the multitude of other ways of storing power aren't cheaper. And assuming that storage technology never advances.

See, this is why I post links instead of doing my own calculations. I'm neither a scientist nor an engineer - but apparently neither are you.

[Argus]

We're going to pay no matter what happens. Better to get the pain out of the way now, no?

Are we? I knew as soon as I saw my first flat screen TV I wanted one. I wasn't about to pay 20,000 for it though. What do they go for now? Five hundred?

Time and technological improvements tend to make things cheaper.

[ToadBrother]

Because you don't care about the well being of millions or billions of people?

No, you should pick the BEST number because you should want to maximize the well being of society.

You pick the best numbers you can, but you pick a number, because if you don't, the well being of billions of people will be harmed immeasurably through inaction.

In the long run, we will all be much better served in every possible way by kicking the fossil fuel habit, and manageable pain now is much better than waiting for the proverbial s--t to hit the fan. It strikes me that doing so while the price of oil is low, and likely to stay low for some time, is better than waiting for it get very high.

[Argus]

Probably not, but if enough industrialized nations push ahead, and then create a tariff system to make sure nations that odn't cooperate can't dump cheaper products in our markets, they'll come around. If Europe, North America and Japan were to institute such a system, I think you would find the developing world coming along nicely.

Except no one has proposed such a plan. Instead the best they've come up with is letting the third world continue to develop their power generation facilities while we pay hundreds of billions to them to help them be less polluting. And western taxpayers are just not gonna go for that. Not ours anyway, and not the Americans.

[ToadBrother]

Are we? I knew as soon as I saw my first flat screen TV I wanted one. I wasn't about to pay 20,000 for it though. What do they go for now? Five hundred?

Time and technological improvements tend to make things cheaper.

But if you don't have some sort of stimulus for improvement they won't get cheaper very quickly. Raising the price of fossil fuels will inevitably make other energy technologies cheaper.

[-1=e^ipi]

Wow. Your calculations are amazing. Or, at least they would be if they took into account how things work in the real world.

I don't know the mass of the vehicle, so I can't really compare fuel economy to conventional vehicles. I can make some crude calculations, but ultimately, the mass of the vehicle used to get 1000 miles for $50 is likely much lower than the mass of most vehicles on the road.

Good thing aluminum is the most abundant material in the earth's crust.

Doesn't mean that extraction costs won't rise as demand rises.

I'm neither a scientist nor an engineer - but apparently neither are you.

Maybe I was at a time. Maybe I have a physics degree. How would you know?

[-1=e^ipi]

You pick the best numbers you can, but you pick a number, because if you don't, the well being of billions of people will be harmed immeasurably through inaction.

Well being will be harmed through action. Well being will be harmed through inaction.

What you should do is maximize well being. You can do this using empirical evidence and integrated assessment models (although I think they need to be modified to maximize expected social welfare in order to take into account all the uncertainty).

For some reason you don't like the concept of maximizing well being.

In the long run, we will all be much better served in every possible way by kicking the fossil fuel habit

In the long run, the sun will die out and all the stars in the universe will run out of fuel. So maybe we should instead switch right now to tidal energy around black holes.

In the long run, humanity is also served if larger technological progress occurred in the past and additional funding for technological progress could have been funded using the lost resources that were used to mitigate against climate change.

It strikes me that doing so while the price of oil is low, and likely to stay low for some time, is better than waiting for it get very high.

That doesn't make sense. If the cost differential between non-CO2 intensive and CO2 intensive forms of energy is higher, then mitigation costs will be higher. If in the future costs of CO2 intensive fuels will be higher, and cost of alternatives will be lower, then there will be more incentive to switch to alternatives.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't know the mass of the vehicle, so I can't really compare fuel economy to conventional vehicles. I can make some crude calculations, but ultimately, the mass of the vehicle used to get 1000 miles for $50 is likely much lower than the mass of most vehicles on the road.

The mass of the car isn't relevant to calculating the energy potential of gasoline vs electricity generated by aluminum. The relative efficiency of the ICE vs electrical motor is.

Doesn't mean that extraction costs won't rise as demand rises.

At a base of $50/thousand miles, it would have to rise significantly to make it uneconomical, even compared to the current cost of gasoline.

Maybe I was at a time. Maybe I have a physics degree. How would you know?

Having a physics degree doesn't make you a scientist anymore than having an economics degree makes Harper an economist.

And, in fairness, I said, apparently, you're not a scientist. Maybe you are but it's not apparent to me.

[ToadBrother]

Well being will be harmed through action. Well being will be harmed through inaction.

What you should do is maximize well being. You can do this using empirical evidence and integrated assessment models (although I think they need to be modified to maximize expected social welfare in order to take into account all the uncertainty).

For some reason you don't like the concept of maximizing well being.

I do believe in maximizing well being. It's just that I don't think just continuing to vomit tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day is actually contributing to our well being. In fact, I think it's doing the opposite.

In the long run, the sun will die out and all the stars in the universe will run out of fuel. So maybe we should instead switch right now to tidal energy around black holes.

In the long run, humanity is also served if larger technological progress occurred in the past and additional funding for technological progress could have been funded using the lost resources that were used to mitigate against climate change.

This is where you demonstrate that you're being disingenuous.

That doesn't make sense. If the cost differential between non-CO2 intensive and CO2 intensive forms of energy is higher, then mitigation costs will be higher. If in the future costs of CO2 intensive fuels will be higher, and cost of alternatives will be lower, then there will be more incentive to switch to alternatives.

If the price of fossil fuels goes up, the differential to the cost of renewables is decreased. This stimulates the use of renewables and inevitably leads to more investment in renewable technologies.

Unless your underlying argument is that you want to keep humanity using fossil fuels as a major means of generating energy for as long as possible, which is what I suspect, and which is why at the end of the day you make absurd statements as you do above.

[-1=e^ipi]

The mass of the car isn't relevant to calculating the energy potential of gasoline vs electricity generated by aluminum. The relative efficiency of the ICE vs electrical motor is.

At a base of $50/thousand miles, it would have to rise significantly to make it uneconomical, even compared to the current cost of gasoline.

I don't know what the efficiency if the aluminum battery + electric motor is. $50/1000 miles doesn't tell me that. It wouldn't be fair to take into account the efficiency of internal combustion engines but not the efficiency of the battery and motor.

Having a physics degree doesn't make you a scientist anymore than having an economics degree makes Harper an economist.

That's true about Harper.

As an aside, many people with the title of 'scientist' don't follow the scientific method, so should they be considered scientist?

As for me, perhaps I've done scientific research in the past. How would you know?

[-1=e^ipi]

It's just that I don't think just continuing to vomit tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every day is actually contributing to our well being. In fact, I think it's doing the opposite.

Okay, so is this belief falsifiable and testable against empirical data or is it dogmatic?

This is where you demonstrate that you're being disingenuous.

How?

Unless your underlying argument is that you want to keep humanity using fossil fuels as a major means of generating energy for as long as possible, which is what I suspect, and which is why at the end of the day you make absurd statements as you do above.

That's not my position. I think a pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions should be determined with maximize wellbeing of society and I think there are ways of calculating that.

[Argus]

But if you don't have some sort of stimulus for improvement they won't get cheaper very quickly. Raising the price of fossil fuels will inevitably make other energy technologies cheaper.

Oil is $40 a barrel. It used to be over $100. I would have thought they would have used that time of expensive oil to show how much cheaper the alternatives were, but that didn't happen. Even with oil at $100 a barrel that was still cheaper than wind or solar. So just how expensive do you think we need to make fossil fuels in order for alternative energy sources to be comparable?

[ReeferMadness]

Oil is $40 a barrel. It used to be over $100.

Oil used to be $2 a barrel but that price never included the cost of pollution because that's an "externality". What's your point?

I would have thought they would have used that time of expensive oil to show how much cheaper the alternatives were, but that didn't happen.

Who is they?

Even with oil at $100 a barrel that was still cheaper than wind or solar. So just how expensive do you think we need to make fossil fuels in order for alternative energy sources to be comparable?

Of course, you have a cite to support your contention. Care to share it?

[TimG]

So just how expensive do you think we need to make fossil fuels in order for alternative energy sources to be comparable?

The stupid thing about this argument is the cost of renewables at any given point in time is a function of the cost of fossil fuels since fossil fuels are required to extract and process all of the inputs needed to create, deliver, install and maintain the renewable. This creates a situation where fossil fuels could be the floor price for energy and all other sources will always cost more no matter what the cost of fossil fuels.